The Role of Europe in a Shifting Global Landscape
Sven Biscop, a Belgian political scientist and strategist, is known for his expertise in the foreign affairs and security of the European Union and its relations with major powers. He serves as a director at the Egmont Royal Institute for International Relations in Brussels and as a professor at Ghent University. Additionally, he is a senior research fellow at Renmin University in Beijing, where he teaches during the summer. Biscop has authored several books, including This Is Not a New World Order: Europe Rediscovers Geopolitics, from Ukraine to Taiwan. His insights are highly valued in policy discussions within Brussels.
The recent developments involving Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Israeli ceasefire with Lebanon have raised critical questions about Europe’s role in a rapidly changing global order. As a European, what does this conflict reveal about the world in 2026?
One key takeaway is that power politics remain a constant throughout history. While it’s not necessary to engage in war to have an impact, having military power ensures that one’s voice is heard. Europe’s lack of military capacity has left it sidelined in these conflicts. This highlights a broader lesson: without the ability to project power, Europe risks being ignored on the global stage.
The erratic nature of the Trump administration further complicates matters. The National Security Strategy emphasized non-interference in other countries’ affairs, but actions have contradicted this rhetoric. The current situation—where the US blocks the Strait of Hormuz and Israel engages in conflict with Lebanon—shows how difficult it is to control the consequences of such actions. Europe must stand firm, advocating for diplomatic solutions rather than escalating the conflict.
Europe’s Chaotic Response and Strategic Challenges
Europe’s response to these events has been described as chaotic. Initially, it was too dispersed, and later, it appeared too timid in addressing violations of international law. For example, in cases like Venezuela, the reaction was often more about disliking the regime than upholding legal principles. This approach is not strategic and fails to address the real issues at hand.
When the request came to send ships to the Strait of Hormuz, the response was cautious. Europe would only participate if a ceasefire was first established. This signals a clear stance: the war must end before any military involvement can occur. Sending ships to the area could blur the line between defensive and offensive actions, increasing the risk of being drawn into the conflict.
This approach underscores a broader lesson: Europe must take a stronger diplomatic stance. It should not shy away from initiatives that could help mediate conflicts, even if it means stepping out of its comfort zone. The EU’s lack of a clear vision for the Middle East and Gulf regions further complicates its ability to act decisively.
The Future of NATO and Transatlantic Relations
NATO as we know it may not return, but Europeans have a vested interest in preserving its structures. A militarily autonomous European pillar within NATO is essential, allowing for interoperability with the US while also being capable of operating independently if needed. This would prepare Europe for various scenarios, especially in light of potential shifts in US leadership.
European leaders often speak of becoming a geopolitical power, but the gap between rhetoric and reality remains significant. While Europe has made fundamental decisions in areas like Ukraine and Russia, it lacks clarity on other critical issues, including its relationship with the US and China. A clear strategy is needed to navigate these complex dynamics.
The “Partner, Competitor, Rival” Framework
The EU’s approach to China as a “partner, competitor, and rival” offers a useful framework for understanding its relationship with major powers. However, this designation is vague and does not provide a clear path forward. Europe must define its objectives and strategies more concretely to avoid being caught off guard by shifting power dynamics.
The US’s behavior under Trump has forced Europe to reconsider its position. The Greenland crisis, for instance, highlighted the need to draw red lines and enforce them. While maintaining the alliance with the US is crucial, Europe must also assert its independence and push back when necessary.
The Rules-Based Order and Its Challenges
The rules-based order, which has underpinned international stability, is under threat. Major powers like the US, Russia, and China are challenging this system, often acting outside its boundaries. Europe, as a legalistic entity, must resist the temptation to abandon this order. Without it, Europe risks being marginalized in a world dominated by spheres of influence.
China’s growing presence in the Middle East presents an opportunity for joint EU-China diplomacy. However, this requires both sides to be serious about collaboration. Europe must also develop a clear China strategy, moving beyond the vague “partner, competitor, rival” framework.
Conclusion: A New World Order or Structural Change?
While some argue that we are entering a new world order, Biscop believes we are still operating within the same structure, albeit one under immense pressure. The balance of power is shifting, with China rising and the transatlantic unity breaking down. This change is structural and will have long-term implications for Europe’s role in global affairs.
Europe must find ways to assert itself, developing a clear strategy and engaging in meaningful diplomacy. The upcoming European Security Strategy offers a chance to redefine Europe’s approach, but it will require careful coordination and bold decision-making.
